Albertans are being forced to choose between keeping an iconic Canadian species alive and keeping their jobs. The Little Smoky and A La Peche Caribou Range Plan, while trying to toe the line, may result in the decimation of both.

The Species at Risk Act requires a plan from Alberta due to Woodland Caribou being listed as “threatened” both provincially and nationally. The plan aims for 65 per cent undisturbed environment for caribou in the Little Smoky and A La Peche ranges. Ideally, this would ensure the stability of herds.

Whitecourt Mayor Maryann Chichak, however, estimated that 1,200 local jobs could be lost if this plan isn’t properly implemented during the Caribou, Forestry and You Public Information Awareness Panel on Sept. 7. This alarming statistic sharply defines the dilemma most residents in the region are now facing—long-term environmentalism verses short-term economics.

The two might not be absolutely mutually exclusive, but there will definitely be some give and take. Some jobs will have to be lost for the caribou preservation and some caribou will have to be lost for job preservation. Most sensible people don’t want to kill off the caribou or live surrounded by a field of stumps due to over-logging. They only ask, reasonably, that the science is sound and the plan is even-handed so they won’t end up losing their jobs for nothing.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to find science that is completely settled, especially when dealing with something as complex as preserving a roaming species. It’s even harder to get people on board with a plan that only has a 60 per cent chance of succeeding, according to the Species at Risk Public Registry.

Forestry advocates say this plan is a theoretical exercise, while environmentalists say it is the bare minimum needed to save the caribou. Even worse, should this plan both fail to revive caribou populations and cost forestry jobs, it could be potentially disastrous for any future environmental initiatives in Alberta and the country as a whole.

When faced with controversy such as this, politicians are prone to half-measures that end up doing little good and a lot of harm. That’s not to say compromise isn’t healthy, but comprise requires dialogue and openness, which both the provincial and federal governments have failed to live up to.

For example, the national office of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is currently suing the federal government over a lack of transparency. The federal government is supposed to report every six months which caribou environments are not protected and how it will work to remedy this. However, they have failed to do this even once ever since they listed the caribou as “threatened” five years ago.

The Alberta Forest Alliance also complained how its letter to the province—detailing criticisms of the plan and concerns over potential job losses—was largely brushed off.

So, it seems both sides do have some common ground.

Besides governmental stonewalling, the other major challenge preventing a compromise is uninformed opinions and their ability to control a conversation. The panel was overall a positive experience for the community, but a few audience members were far too supportive of outlandish ideas that happened to serve their agenda.

One theory that caused cheers and clapping was that natural predators such a wolves were the problem. Then how come wolves and caribou have managed to coexist for thousands of years without either going extinct? More so, why hasn’t the mass gunning and poisoning of wolves helped revive caribou populations? If people scapegoat wolves, the only result will be more dead animals.

Both environmentalists and the forestry industry must come together to solve this issue. Forestry companies are already making good strides towards protecting caribou, such as avoiding certain areas during calving season. It is these small steps that will ultimately lead to a resolution that all sides can live with. We just need to take enough of them.